If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Our old health care system was already a bureaucratic and regulatory nightmare. It had 16,000 different codes for different ailments. Under our new, “improved” system, there will be more than a 100,000.

Government likes to think regulations can account for every possibility. Injured at a chicken coop? The code for that will be Y9272. Fall at an art gallery? That means you are a Y92250.

There are three different codes for walking into a lamppost -- depending on how often you’ve walked into lampposts. This is supposed to give government a more precise way to reimburse doctors for treating people and alert us to surges in injuries that might inspire further regulation.

Oops ... got another glitch with the pre-existing condition people. While there are only 100,000 people enrolled in this program (remember, they shut down applications because they were running low on money), they are turning out to be more costly than anticipated. (Maybe they shoulda checked with the insurance companies about these costs?). So now, they are running out of money for these 100,000 people, too. They are telling the states that the Fed will reimburse the states for the cost over-runs ... up to a ceiling.

I'd guess that the states that did set up state exchanges are beginning to feel a little queasy about now; and the states that decided not to set up exchanges are waiting to see how this all unfolds.

The administration has given the state-based plans until next Wednesday to respond to proposed contract terms for the program's remaining seven months.Delivered last Friday, the new contract stipulated that states will be reimbursed "up to a ceiling.

"The `ceiling' part is the issue for us," Keough said in an interview. "They are shifting the risk from the federal government, for a program that has experienced huge cost overruns on a per-member basis, to states. And that's a tall order."

State officials say one likely consequence of the money crunch will be a cost shift to people in the program, resulting in sudden increases in premiums and copayments. Many might just drop out, said Keough.

If a state and HHS can't come to an agreement, the federal government will take over that state's program for the rest of this year. Amie Goldman, director of the Wisconsin program, said that would be an unneeded and possibly risky disruption for patients who'll have to change insurance next year anyway, when the pre-existing conditions plan formally ends.

Goldman said in her state, for example, the University of Wisconsin hospital isn't part of the federal government's provider network. "My colleagues in other states have similar concerns about holes in the network," she said. "I think it puts people at medical risk."

At his news conference this week, Obama acknowledged the rollout of his health care law wouldn't be perfect. There will be "glitches and bumps" he said, and his team is committed to working through them. However, it's unclear how the pre-existing conditions plan could get more money without the cooperation of Republicans in Congress.

The program got off to a slow start, partly because insurance isn't cheap. It offers policies at market rates, and that can mean premiums of $500 a month for someone in their 50s. The first inkling of financial problems came in February, when HHS announced a freeze on new applications.

The plan was intended only as a stopgap until the law's main push to cover the uninsured starts next year. Subsidized private insurance will be available through new state-based markets, as well as an expanded version of Medicaid for low-income people. At the same time, virtually all Americans will be required to carry a policy, or pay a fine.States are free to accept or reject the Medicaid expansion, and the new problems with the stopgap insurance plan could well have a bearing on their decisions.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2SNnDYKVB

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Quote from e-mail

"It seems like Mary Fallin and the State Chamber are up to their old tricks again with Obamacare.

First the Governor wanted to accept the $54 million to set up the State Exchanges. The grassroots mobilized and said “NO” and she relented. Then she tried again with Exchanges 2.0 and once again the grassroots stood up and said “NO” and Gov. Fallin and the State Chamber relented again.

Now it’s the Medicaid dollars for the Obamacare portion. Fallin said no last fall, but the State Chamber has been wielding a statewide media campaign trying to convince the public that taking Obamacare dollars is a good thing.

And well, Mary is scared to death of her re-election campaign next year and when the State Chamber said, ”if you want us to give to your campaign, then you better accept the Medicaid dollars,” Gov. Fallin changed her tune.

So now that leads us the their third attempt to get Oklahomans to accept Obamacare… SB 640. Click here to read more about their attempt to accept Obamacare funds.

Now Gov. Fallin has gotten the most liberal GOP Senator and House member, Brian Crain and Doug Cox, to sponsor the bill for her. And by the way, we have no idea what language is actually in this bill because they plan to formulate in the conference committee process, which means it can be voted on in secret.

What better way to implement a Nancy Pelosi bill than to emulate her style.. Vote for the bill and then we’ll tell you what is in it.

The bottom line is this - SB 640 will accept Obamacare funds in order to expand Medicaid. And unfortunately, while it’s 100% of the amount in the first couple years, it will drop down to where Oklahoma will be responsible for up the vast majority of the expansion. Meaning millions of dollars that is being spent on education and public safety will have to be shifted to pay for Obamacare here in Oklahoma.

Gov. Fallin is trying her best to keep a safe distance between this latest proposal and the State Chamber is spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to convince Oklahomans that Obamacare is good for Oklahoma.

Oklahomans have led the way in every step to block Obamacare and it has been working! They are already talking about since the states didn’t set up exchanges that the federal government will probably put off implementing Obamacare for at least a year if not longer.

Let’s continue the bold stand to reject ANY Obamacare funds and that includes calling your state legislators and telling them to vote NO on SB 640. Click here to find your State Representative.

Gov. Fallin and the State Chamber are trying once again to put lipstick on the Obamacare pig... But you, the grassroots, are much smarter than that. Call your legislators and call Gov. Fallin (405-521-2342) and tell them that we don’t want ANY part of Obamacare… and that includes SB 640!

As always if you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to email me at darren@libertyok.com.
Darren Gantz

Oklahomans for Liberty

| follow on Twitter | forward to a friend

unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences "

charly

"Well, you know even though I'm old my body should not be worn out.............I'm a lazy person so I never used it enough to wear it out"

Oops! another unintended consequence. Health insurance has usually been an attractive benefit to unions for workers; especially in lower income groups where employment may be part-time and/or seasonal. When present contracts expire, the costs may change the playing field entirely.

If employers can no longer afford the cushier plans of previous union benefits, everybody ends up with lesser plans (though still possibly also costing more than those plans cost today). It's one less reason for someone to be a member of a union. Bon mentioned that was his ONLY reason for joining.

Over the past few days, I've read some similar statements from some other unions' leaders. Wonder if the Ds are making such an effort for the immigrant vote because they are anticipating losing union votes as their agenda progresses.

"In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the act's provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it," Kinsey Robinson, president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, said last month. “I am therefore calling for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.”The Associated Press contributed to this story.

A friend and I, different insurance companies, different workplaces, but the same GP, have recently received "important calls about our health and benefits" from our "case nurses" (??????) at our insurance companies.

The nurses were not selling anything, and seemed only marginally interested in our health, and even less interested in talking about available benefits--but they were very, very interested in our blood test results and any specific chronic illness diagnoses. They knew our medications--but not necessarily why we were taking them.

Both of us had our Conspiracy Theory hats on when we took these calls, and so we didn't give much information (at least intentionally).

If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (By “average,” I mean the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

It occurs to me that if the cost of being insured (as a 25 yr old) is going to be a minimum of $2200/year; and the penalty for no insurance is $750, we may not get the participation of these young, healthy people ... who are an essential element of providing coverage for pre-existing conditions, and other benefits required for Obamacare.

It also appears that those who need the coverage for pre-existing conditions may not be able to get it anyhow, since funding has already run out for that. So this benefit may have covered some of those people, but will not be able to cover all of them. We have only solved part of that problem, and at what cost to the rest of the system?

We might have been just as well off giving every citizen a tax credit for health insurance, and letting them shop for the plan that fit their needs.

Have you noticed that there will be higher rates for smokers and obesity? That seems actuarily reasonable in a free market system of private insurors. When the govt engages in the process, it becomes more tyranical in nature. If the rates get too high, will these high-risk individuals simply opt to pay the penalty for non-insurance.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

In a Bloomberg article published on May 27, 2013, Ramesh Ponnuru details another example of the Obama administration’s contempt for the law:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the sweeping health-care law that Obama signed in 2010, asks state governments to set up health exchanges, and authorizes the federal government to provide tax credits to people who use those exchanges to get insurance. But most states have refused to establish the online marketplaces, and both the tax credits and many of the law’s penalties can’t go into effect until the states act.Obama’s IRS has decided it’s going to apply the tax credits and penalties in states that refuse, even without statutory authorization.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

This is just heresay but a friend of mine who works an hourly wage(a fairly good one), with health ins. said that his paycheck has what he called an "insurance tax" as a deduction from his pay. I haven't seen the pay stub but he said that one week when he had about 90 hours, the medical tax was about $390.00 with insurance only for himself. At first I thought it was the 40% luxury insurance tax but he was told it was a percentage of his wages and had nothing to do with the company cost of his health ins. He was also told that the $390.00 was more that the cost paid by his company for his insurance.

In the beginning, I said that Nancy Pelossi's statement that you had to pass it to find what was in it, was the smarest thing I ever heard her say. I think many will see that she was EXACTLY RIGHT!!

My supplemantal Medicare policy has gone from $90-$95 to over $200 per month since Obamacare was passed. Let's see what happens after 2014